Where The Holocaust Is Taught In Schools

Map created by @geoglobal_The map above shows which countries mention the holocaust in their school textbooks. The map is based on data on The International status of education about the Holocaust: a global mapping of textbooks UNESCO report.

Here’s how they define the various categories:

Direct references occur in countries whose curricula stipulate teaching about the Holocaust by using the term ‘Holocaust’ or ‘Shoah’ or by using alternative terminologies such as ‘genocide against the Jews’, or ‘Nazi persecution of minorities’.

While most curricula employ the term ‘Holocaust’ (in Albania, Australia, Denmark, Ethiopia and Poland, for example), some use ‘Shoah’ (Belgium (Flanders), Côte d’Ivoire, Italy and Luxembourg), or both in combination (in Argentina, Germany (Saxony) and Switzerland (canton of Bern)).

In other countries, the Holocaust is referred to directly, albeit by using alternative terms such as ‘the singularity of the Jewish genocide’ in Spain, the ‘Nazi policy of extermination’ in Andorra, the ‘extermination of Jews’ (Belgium (Wallonia), Ecuador), ‘genocide of the Jews’ (France, Germany (Lower Saxony)), ‘mass murder of […] Jews’ (Trinidad and Tobago), ‘persecution of Jews’ (Singapore) and the ‘Final Solution’ (Namibia).

Partial references occur in countries whose curricula stipulate teaching about the Holocaust indirectly in order to achieve a learning aim which is not primarily the history of the Holocaust (concerning responses to the Holocaust outside Europe) or to illustrate a topic other than the Holocaust (where the Holocaust is mentioned as one among other aspects of human rights education).

In such cases, when the Holocaust is named in the curriculum as a means to other ends, the historical meaning and complexity of the event are not addressed. The curricula of Argentina, Belize, Columbia, Ecuador, Mexico and Slovenia thus present the Holocaust as an example of violations of human rights.

Similarly, in the United States of America (Maryland), pupils are required to ‘explain the events that led to the beginning of the Second World War’, and to ‘investigate the response of the United States government to the discovery of the Holocaust and immigration policies with respect to refugees’.

The context only is provided in countries whose curricula refer to the Second World War or to National Socialism, without referring explicitly to the Holocaust. The curricula of Sri Lanka and India, for example, contain references to the ‘Results/Impact of Nazism’ or the ‘Consequences/Results/Impact of World War II’. Botswana, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malaysia, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Senegal and Uruguay contain similarly indirect contextualizations.

The Rwandan curriculum likewise requires pupils to ‘compare the phenomenon between [sic] Fascism and Nazism and what took place in Rwanda’, and refers to ‘Nazi doctrines’, ‘loss of human life’, the ‘comparative study of various genocides’, and ‘stages of genocide’; while the curriculum of the Democratic Republic of the Congo likewise refers to ‘the harmful effects of Nazism’, and the Costa Rican curriculum refers to ‘antisemitism and racial superiority: the case of Jews, Muslims, Slavs and Gypsies’.

No reference to the Holocaust (whether as a term, an event or its context) occurs in particular when curricula do not stipulate the specific contents of history teaching, but rather discuss merely the necessity and purpose of the school subjects of history or social studies and the teaching methods to be used, as in Brunei Darussalam, Dominica, Fiji, Iceland and Thailand.

Summary of the report itself:

The UNESCO and Georg Eckert Institute report explores how the Holocaust is presented in secondary school history and social studies curricula and textbooks worldwide.

The research reviewed 272 curricula from 135 countries and 89 textbooks from 26 countries, focusing on how the Holocaust is taught, interpreted, and narrated internationally.

Key Findings:

• Curricula Analysis:
  • Approximately half of the countries studied explicitly include the Holocaust in their history curricula, mostly in the context of World War II or human rights violations.
  • Terminology varies; most use “Holocaust,” some use “Shoah,” and others adopt alternative terms such as “genocide of Jews” or “Final Solution.”
  • Many curricula only indirectly reference the Holocaust, often as part of broader lessons about human rights or historical contexts like WWII.
• Textbook Analysis:
  • Despite shared representations of the Holocaust (e.g., geographic scope in Europe, common protagonists like Hitler, and focus on Jews as victims), textbooks reveal significant local variation.
  • Narrative structures differ significantly, with textbooks sometimes “domesticating” the Holocaust to local contexts, such as comparing it with local atrocities or genocides.
  • Hitler-centric narratives are widespread, though some textbooks move beyond this to highlight broader ideological causes such as racism and antisemitism.
  • Interpretations vary, with some textbooks including misleading representations (e.g., describing victims as “opponents,” or simplifying the event by comparisons with other genocides).

Conclusion:

Education about the Holocaust worldwide shows both convergence (shared international narratives and terminology) and divergence (distinct local narratives shaped by national or regional perspectives).

The study suggests the existence not of one Holocaust narrative but multiple localized “Holocausts,” each shaped by cultural, historical, and political contexts. It provides recommendations for more nuanced and contextually sensitive educational approaches in future curricula and textbooks.

You can read the full report here.